Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible (Wikipedia). States that attempt to control and direct all aspects of individual life were the Maurya dynasty of India (c. 321 – c.185 bc), the Ch’in dynasty of China (221 – 206 bc) and the reign of Zulu chief Shaka (c. 1816 – 1828). Later on in the early 1920s, Mussolini established Totalitarianism in Italy calling it the fascist state of Italy. In 1924 till 1953 Stalin started popular Totalitarianism as well as Hitler in 1933 till 1945. They managed to get overwhelming support for their leadership due to modern communication and being a charismatic leader.

When hearing Totalitarianism words such as dictatorship, despotism or tyranny are quite often triggered. The moment a state is pushed into Totalitarianism by it’s new leader there will be a spring cleaning and all political institutions and its traditions will be swept away and replaced by new ones. The state gets a special goal to pursuit and all resources are directed towards this goal no matter the costs and consequences. All resistances that may arise about achieving the goal will be rationalized and any dissident will be marked as evil and against the state. The pursuit of the goal is the only ideological foundation of the totalitarian state.

All social institutions and organizations under Totalitarianism are discouraged or suppressed through which a social safety net is weakened as well as the people. Artificial ties to the state only and its ideology replace old religions and social ties. Individualism is diminished and in the end people will embrace the totalitarian state’s ideology. Mass conformity arises and diversity of the individual no longer exists. Organized violence on a large scale will be used to keep the people committed to the state and its ideology. In Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union we saw the Jews and Kulaks being killed and singled out and this action being rationalized as good and in honour of the state’s ideology. The actions of a totalitarian State such as police enforcement can be labelled as unpredictable and directed by the whim of their rulers. Hitler for instance passed a law in 1933 that enabled him to amend the constitution at will, which he used to put the constitution offside.

Totalitarianism can be seen as an act against life and will never be able to envision or oversee the harm and consequences it will cause to life in its entirety. When people are forced into living in a totalitarian regime, and this can be after they are born into such a system or after change of government, they no longer have a voice in the very system. The only voice they have left is the voice of fear, fear of survival. It might not be a surprise that even when these people are set free from such a regime they simply do not know how to live their own life with their own values. The consequences of living under a totalitarian regime may even have consequences into the next generations. An entire population that never have been brought up to decide things, in their lives, for themselves will become an apathetic and thus initiative less population that are only raised to follow orders. As we’ve seen in Nazi Germany such practices can have devastating consequences when the population obeys a regime as if it were their own desires. Imagine that your state will think for you all your life long, would you be full of zest for life? When people are released from such a regime it will not be a surprise that they have to learn how to become self-responsible instead of being responsible for the orders they were used to take. Therefore developing critical thinking will not happen over night and just as said before this might take generations before a whole population is able to find their true selves again and develop their own set of principles in alignment or separated from the national ones, depending on who’s in power.

People that live in a relatively ‘free’ and democratic country mostly can’t get the fact that for instance people in North Korea were genuinely sobbing about the lost of their dear dictator Kim Il Sung at some point in history. When we look at the reality of people in such countries we can see that its merely survival. They identify with their dictator and the state’s ideology to no longer be perceived as a threat to the state. It’s a way of bonding, becoming a victim through which they believe the state’s ideology and thus are able to gain sympathy for the dictator and his regime. This behaviour is labelled as the Stockholm syndrome or to be precise the Oslo syndrome since we’re talking about an entire population. So taking away the dictator/aggressor doesn’t necessarily mean that the entire population will change their point of view over night. These people are traumatized and have no longer their own set of values to live by let alone their power and voice in the system.

It will not be very hard to understand that Totalitarianism isn’t the way to go. When we take away the self-responsibility of an entire population through victimizing them and never learning them to live by their own principles, life will be zombified. Then the question arises: do we want to be told what to think and do? Or are we ready to come up with our own solutions for the consequences we’ve caused? Quite often in first world countries there seems to be so much choice that people become passive as a reaction to it and wouldn’t mind to be told what to choose in order to make things easy and effortless. So the real question is: are we ready to lead ourselves, are we self-leaders?

Self-leadership in the best interest of all in all ways would be the answer to a lot of the problems we face on this earth. If we do not pollute we will not end up with a polluted world. If we would walk the talk we would actually get things done. If we would direct ourselves by principle we would no longer point fingers at others when it comes to blame and solving issues. Taking self-responsibility and living life the fullest will not only enrich our own lives, but as well the lives of others. Of course we can practise self-leadership within any economic and political system, though the effectiveness will depend on the amount of freedom within the particular system. When one lives under Totalitarianism one still has self-leadership about ones thoughts/emotions and feelings and when one lives in a democratic system one is more likely able to walk one’s principles in a more open way and even start initiatives that do bring change.

In other words self-leadership is a start that can only fully blossom when it’s accompanied by an economic system that values all life equally. Self-leadership in itself is something that needs to be taught to the majority, since this isn’t something that comes naturally for most of us. The current schooling system doesn’t allow for self-leadership, in the contrary, it allows our kids to become good workers in the existing systems. Thus with the economic system the current schooling system will no longer exist since it’s not supporting self-leadership in kids. As a matter of fact most teachers in the system see students with critical thinking skills as unsuitable and difficult in the classroom. Self-leadership will not be developed when there is no critical thinking, where critical thinking is not defined as constantly asking questions to manipulate a situation due to fear or lack of vocabulary. These are kids that do disturb class and are not adding any value to the group process.

To develop self-leadership in kids it’s important to enlarge their vocabulary already at a young age, preferable by parents that have walked that same path themselves. By the time these kids are ready to join the labour market they know what they need to do, they know what their strong points are and where they can add value to society. Already by changing the schooling system and being open for another form of economic system such as a Living Income Guaranteed life will be so much more. The question might arise where you as an adult can make your change or contribution in the system, knowing that you are educated and formed by the old system? One point we need to understand is the fact that change can happen always in all ways. No one is too old to not be able to change. When you have young kids you can make the change along with your kids, when you don’t have kids or young kids you can lead yourself into self-change. Whenever you see that things need to be changed in our world know that you need to change yourself first to create a momentum for all to change. Self-leadership is in all of us and yes being the leader can result in being alone at the top from time to time when there is no one there to tell you what to do. We hate it when we get told what to do and at the same time we love it when we do not have to take self-responsibility leaving a back door open to blame another than ourselves when things blow up in our face. So what we need is to make a clear stance, are we up for self-leadership within a LIG environment or do we want to stay zombified and victimized by our own will. I know I’ll have the choice to free myself and be my own leader and as I can do it you can do it.

Colonialism, as we spoke about in our previous blog, is closely related to Imperialism or even interchangeable. Robert J. C. Young says that Imperialism is the concept while Colonialism is the practise. So Colonialism is instigated through the desires of the empire, which in turn creates a consequential relationship between the empire and the desired countries by the empire. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about Colonialism that it uses the term Colonialism to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia.

Throughout time the European continent has been the biggest colonizer in the world. Once they were able to make horse carriages and they build wooden ships, they could explore their environment on a global scale. Where it started of with curiosity of what they would find it slowly but surely turned into the desire to have and control that what other far away countries had. First it was herbs and foods, human labour and later it became minerals and oil. This European rage started in the 16th century with the Greek emperor Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire and Napoleon as well.

In almost all cases the empire forces their language, culture, political preferences and law upon the colonized countries. Thus Colonialism goes a bit further than simply stealing some land and becoming a geological bigger empire. It’s about suppressing the people of the captured countries, using them as slaves in their fatherland or as slaves in their own country and steal all their valuable resources. Through Colonialism we’ve also seen that the immigrants of the fatherland outnumbered the native people of certain countries or even continents. We can surely see that in Australia, Canada, Argentina, United States of America and South Africa where mostly white people are now the majority or at least a large portion of the entire population.

In Canada and Europe we can also see how diseases were used to eliminate the native population. There were as well vaccination programs throughout Africa that did increase the world population. Though Canada colonialized by Great Britain had its own way, in the beginning of the 20th century, of dealing with the native Indians in the country they now called theirs. Tuberculosis and smallpox were introduced and no measurements were taken to stop these deceases from spreading. Some even speak of genocide against the native population.

Roger Tignor says in a response on the book ‘Colonialism: A theoretical Overview’ written by Jürgen Osterhammel: ” Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interest that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.”

According to Rogers explanation of Colonialism and taking in mind that an Empire is frequently referred to as the fatherland or motherland, we can see the resemblance between Colonialism and a dominant parent. Whereas the Empire is the parent and the colonized country is the suppressed child. How often are parents absolutely convinced about their children being their possession? It’s the same for the Empire that is convinced that other countries simply need to belong to their territory.

The majority of parents expect their children to do as they told them, because it’s for their own best. Could it be that the parent is directing the child in certain behavior because they are under the spell of their own fear of losing their possession? Many children are not allowed to explore and play in the sand, because otherwise they will get dirty. So big daddy Empire doesn’t want their servant population to explore, the wiser they get the more chance they will rebel and fight themselves free.

That’s what we’ve seen in countries that were colonized and became independent again. They started of as a child of the Empire and then when they entered puberty they fought the rules daddy had set to keep them suppressed. Though many colonized countries kept being dependent on the motherland in one way or another. As if they never learned how to deal with life because the parents had been so dominant that they had never been able to explore life for themselves.

So the Empire sees his exponential territorial growth as something that he’s allowed to do and the population of the colonialized country should be glad that the Empire is here to protect them for their own stupidity. While it is all about control, having control over the other to become more than the other and thus entitled to suppress the other. Again not much different than how parents possess and treat their offspring. As Kahlil Gibran says in one of his poems:

Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

and though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,

for they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls.

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,

which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them,

but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children

as living arrows are sent forth.

The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,

and He bends you with His might

that His arrows may go swift and far.

Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;

for even as He loves the arrow that flies,

so He loves also the bow that is stable.

It is essential to keep in mind that controlling others is not the way forward and thus Colonialism, even when its done in a modern way through capitalistic measures by corporations, is not giving us as global populace the freedom to thrive. Even though the grass looks greener at the neighbors, stealing land and resources and suppressing people is not a sustainable way of interacting with each other.

History shows us that every Empire came into existence but eventually fell. So if Imperialism/Colonialism isn’t sustainable why not invest in long-term relationships and fair trade. I might have the green grass you want, even though that is no reason to go and suppress me, we could also join and share our knowledge and make the grass greener on both sides of the fence. Cooperation is key here, and paying each other real and fair prices for the resources we do not have ourselves, would make us “long for Life itself”.

Within a Living Income Guaranteed we do not think in structures of control and suppression. And it is already in the name of Colonialism that we know what its all about. Colon is me which translate into shit is me. We do not want to interact with something or someone when we know shit will happen and is inevitable. We want to work together with people and find solutions to problems that affect us all now or in the long run. We respect the existence of other countries, even how borders will look like many years from now. We do not want to force our mental legacy upon another we’ll explain LIG and see how another can see the common sense of it. We exchange views with people that support a unconditional Basic Income and we exchange views with people that want a better life for all. We would love a big community spread throughout the world that all have the goal to “long for Life itself”.

Colonialism is for narcissists that want every other country to become a clone of themselves like a daddy syndrome where the dad want his child to be in his likeness so that he will live forever though his child. Colonialism is for fearful people that think they lose it all when others do not comply to their phobic desires to have a world that is from them and in the likeness of them. We’re all one as humanity and we can be all equal within our own individuality. With LIG we have the financial support to work on ourselves and to have the time to do so in order to become the individual that is really us when stripped from fear of survival. We do not need the shit of Colonialism, we can do better than that and we’re essentially capable to be a better version of ourselves, which is in a way cloning 2.0. Be your improved self and join groups that work towards sustainable solutions. We have only one earth and one life, so if we do not put our efforts together who’s going to do it for us?

Imperialism the big brother of Colonialism or is it the other way around? It’s seems like the chicken or the egg question and researchers are not agreeing on this point yet. What we do know is that empires have existed in ancient times as well as today and also colonies have been set up throughout time. We could say that Colonialism started off with curiosity for other parts of the world, the adventure of finding new land and foods. Once seeing these countries, full of resources that didn’t belong to them, the colonist were stimulated to take that which didn’t belong to them. So they colonialized these countries in order to have a say in these resources. The imperialist also took land that didn’t belong to them to enlarge their imperium, with or without resources. Whereas todays Imperialism is more about gaining control over other areas in the world by influencing groups of people. This can be done in various ways, where we see today that Imperialism is not only an act of countries suppressing other countries, it’s as well an act of influencing people worldwide by corporations. Marxist once said that Imperialism is the ultimate form of Capitalism, which can be understood when people in developed countries are measured by the brands they wear and use. They breath Capitalism.

When we have a look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of Imperialism we see the following explanation:

a policy or practise by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world.

the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.

These explanations lay out the basics of Imperialism, but there is more to it. There are various ways of Imperialism such as Cultural Imperialism, Political Imperialism, Economic Imperialism, Corporate Imperialism etc.

Cultural Imperialism and its problems:

Is forcing our cultural values and preferences upon another minority such as American and European pop music being in the charts of a developing society. As well as making American and European artwork into Art and that of African artist into craftsmanship. In both examples we are speaking about the domination of another group of people that we as developed countries determine as less. The problem is that we as developed countries force them into this position in which they will never become more than their oppressors.

Political Imperialism and its problems:

Is forcing political control over another country and replacing their government with a puppet government is not new and at the same time it’s not at all threatened by extinction yet. We’ve seen this happening in the Cold War on both sides with the United States and the Soviet Union. Also in Iraq and Africa we’ve seen how Political Imperialism played out. Almost in every case it looked good and noble when these empires took over the local regime, though it always ended up in a bigger nightmare for its native inhabitants. Once the imperialists had what they wanted, resources or land, there was no interest in the native inhabitants left whatsoever.

In Libya the American empire murdered Gaddafi after he had organized a society where all could benefit. Afterwards the entire country has fallen in disrepair and up until today citizens are fleeing the country to Europe. Here we can see that Imperialism has contributed to the massive problems of illegal immigration and people dying on boats on the ocean.

Economic Imperialism and its problems:

Is forcing countries into cheap labour for the empires while lying through their teeth about the real intensions when they offer these companies and countries work. Even organizations as the World Bank have to make this scam look valid and legal, while they are robbing these countries through unfair contracts. There is no way developing countries will get upon their own two feet when the developed countries do not stop dominating them. In India we’ve seen many farmers commit suicide after they’d taken a microcredit of the imperialists.

Corporate Imperialism and its problems:

Is forcing to break the national spirit of a country and its only concern is how to maximize profit. It has nothing to do with bringing civilization to developing countries; it’s about robbing a nation of its resources, whether that is natural or human resources. We could see that for instance in the Iraq war a corporation such as Halliburton was practicing Corporate Imperialism where public resources were allocated to reconstruction while they profited from it. Here we could see the slogan of Imperialism, destroy, rebuild, occupy and exploit in the flesh.

So what is it exactly what we’re looking at here besides another ISM. With Capitalism we already saw that greed was a big influence, also with Imperialism greed is a big motivator. Though when we dig a bit deeper we can also see that in the foundation Imperialism is the lack of the ability to share. If one is satisfied with oneself and ones situation, there is no need to expand in a material way and keeping it all for oneself. Imperialism is imbedded in our developed country genes. There are enough resources to feed the entire planet, yet some have food and some have not. The question we could ask is: when is enough enough? What makes people from developed countries so unwilling to share? Maybe once they’ve tasted from the imperialistic elixir they were hooked?

Sharing is an act of self-honestly taking unconditionally all that you need, while considering as well the needs of others.

When we look at the construct of sharing and how that is pre-programmed within us and modelled by the living examples that we call parents, we can see that sharing comes naturally when the living examples in our lives have that same tendency. So if we see the empire as a child and their toy is crude oil, then we can see that some children see their toy as a part of themselves, an extension as you will. So the empire sees crude oil as their possession and a part of who they are. The empire uses up litres or gallons of oil, because that’s the way they live. So here we can see how important the genes of the child are, its personality and its environment. The empire is used taking all that there is for its pleasure, it has a personality of glamour and spending and its environment is breathing crude oil. We can say that the empire has a projected attachment to crude oil, which means that it has a strong connection with it and that it identifies itself with it.

Since a parent of a child has a big influence over the way the child is going to perceive sharing. So who the is the parent of an empire? That must be the emperor himself, or the one that is directing the empire. When the parent has to have a certain item so badly we see this same urge within the child playing out in different situations. So when the emperor wants crude oil so badly because he believes strongly that all oil is his own, the empire will use a lot of gasoline in their cars, because they believe they’re entitled to have freedom and go wherever they want to go. So after many many decades the empire doesn’t even grasp the point that crude oil is off the earth, through their possessive urge that is bigger than themselves they feel all oil is already theirs and they are entitled to take it no matter what.

So the empire’s mind tells it that it needs crude oil and thus they will justify anything to get to the crude oil. Ultimately it’s the pre-programming of the survival of the fittest, with an underlying current of the fear of not having, missing out and the fear of loss. So by taking and not sharing, the empire starts feeling completed and more than anything else around it. And that’s where the war machines come in, to take all it can take, simply because it can.

Due to the polarized nature of this unequal way of sharing it would have been as easy to share and live equally. George Orwell said it already in his famous book Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” That’s the entire construct of the personality of an empire; I am more equal than you and I have the right to screw with you.

It is obvious that Imperialism is not going to do any good for our planet and all life on it. Yet we still have to deal with the physical consequences of it on a daily base and more consequences are still produced. A Dutch organization started an Urban mining project in Africa and collects cell phones, pay people money for it and ship it back to the developed countries. In those countries they perform the mining in a safe way and collect metals and minerals from the cell phones. When this mining is done in Africa on dumping grounds, they simply burn the materials and do not get all minerals out and cause major health problems in the youngsters who do this work. So for the coming years we will have to be creative about how to deal with the consequences of Imperialism/old school Capitalism and at the same time think about how to organize our world in such a way that sharing becomes natural to all.

Many alternatives are already in place, people that like to base entire societies on sharing alone, or paying with your heart. Which is all right within a small community, but at this stage in time not yet a way to reorganize globally. Lets use fair pricing first where all parties who collaborate in making a product get their fair share, where no one gets exploited by imperialistic urges.

Many countries have these special courses for foreigners that want to apply for a citizenship. Native citizens never have to take a test. Wouldn’t it be fair to test the waters of all your inhabitants as a country to see if they are content and confident in the future of their country they live in. Ask the people what they see as solutions for certain problems, make it automated and form groups that can address the problems and solutions and really interact with the inhabitants native or by choice. When we make happy citizens we make a happy country. The same as in parenting, when the child is happy the parent is happy. And with happy we do not mean creating an society with no responsibility that’s hunting for freedom no matter what the consequences are. Its good to know what sucks according to a countries inhabitants, when a country gives them self-responsibility to come up with solutions the inhabitants feel respected and validated and ready to participate. As now a days discontent of citizens ends up in activism or verbal diarrhea on social media. Give people the tools to become constructive beings and share their knowledge, since sharing is caring.

Within the Living Income Guaranteed we give people the opportunity to think along and share their experience and knowledge to build an economic system that is best for all and that doesn’t need an empire to move itself. So care and share and help building your own future and that of your children and children’s children. Connect yourself with LIG.

Liberalism is a theory in economics and a political philosophy that is founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. In Classical Liberalism and especially in Social Liberalism these two principles are the most important pillars of the entire philosophy. Liberals around the world have different views on what it entails to be a liberal, though the majority of liberals support: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments and international cooperation.

The 18th century philosopher John Locke is seen as the founder of Modern Liberalism. Locke wrote the foundational text “Two Treatises” where he outlined his major ideas. According to Locke each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property. He made a social contract for governments to not violate. The liberals in that era opposed Traditional Conservatism and found ways to replace this Absolutism with Representative Democracy and the rule of law. After the French Revolution in the 19th century also other parts of the world had liberal governments coming into place. In the 20th century the liberal democracies were the winners of both world wars and thereafter Social Liberalism became the key component in the expansion of the welfare state. Up until today liberal parties are of substantial influence throughout the world.

When we look at the definition and etymology of Liberalism we see that the Merriam-Webster dictionary says the follow about Liberalism:

1: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.

2: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).

Words like liberal, liberty, libertarian and libertine do all originate from the Latin word liber, which means free. The word liberal was first used in the 14th century to describe liberal arts that represented a specific form of education for the free-born man. Up until the 16th century the word liberal was used in a positive way, in the 16th century the word had positive and negative connotations and denotations, though the positive use of the word was most common up until the 19th century. Throughout the years the meaning of the word Liberalism changed, whereas in the USA Liberalism was connected to the welfare-state politics and Europe associated it more with less government influences and a laissez-faire economy. Even now a days being a liberal in one country, doesn’t have to be the same in another country.

Liberalism didn’t just emerge from within the populace, several revolutions took place such as: the American Revolution, the Belgium Revolution and the French Revolution. After the French Revolution, France ended up with the Code of Napoleon, which was a merely libertarian society. Italy gained a lot from the French revolution; they got a better economic and religious situation as well as intellectual intolerance and nationalism that emerged. Also Switzerland had a long-term positive influence after the French Revolution.

During these turbulent times also the Industrial Revolution took place which drastically changed the 18th century society, classes shifted, wealth increased and nations began assuming national identities. Farmers and craftsman became factory workers, women and children started out as cheap labourers till child labour was no longer legal and later in time schools came into place to let the women and men work in the factories. The schools were there to prepare these low class children for the same kind of work their parents did. The liberals didn’t mind schools to be a place to create obedient people, since the never ending economic growth has always been their goal, thus more workers in one’s factory is only stimulating one’s own wealth.

Now the question is how liberal is Liberalism when it comes to practical daily living and how much difference is their within liberty when looking at their opponents the Conservatives. Liberals and Conservatives, especially in the USA, have always been each other’s opponents. Their relationship started of as a polarized relationship and nothing changed since 3 centuries. Which is funny in a way when we hear Obama say he wants change, while under no government real change takes place. The never-ending rivalry between Liberals and Conservatives show us the current political minds that have not transcended a certain level of egoistic toddler behaviour.

Recently a clinical psychiatrist (Lyle Rossiter, USA) declared that Liberalism is a mental disorder. He says: “Liberalism is a wilful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society.” While a study funded by the US Government’s National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health has concluded that Conservatism can be explained psychologically as: “a set of neuroses rooted in fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity.” This seems to be a case of the pot calls the kettle black where both political currents are getting dirty. It makes one think about the real differences between the psyche of politicians if there are any. We might be depicted as psychological patients, we probably all want freedom at the end of the day and we probably all mean different things when we say freedom.

So the evidence is in the pudding or more specific the evidence is in the words. Freedom, equality and the right to life are currently noble words and at the same time hollowed out and full of egoism. It is simply not lived and certainly not fully grasped. When my freedom is enslaving you and your freedom is being good to me, it might seem like a win-win situation, but in fact we are abusing ourselves and each other. When the actions that flow from achieving freedom would be in the best interest of all, there would be no misunderstanding at all. Wouldn’t that be a case of liberal thinking? Or shall we say critical thinking? We might have entered a century where freedom on all areas of our lives has to be in the best interest of all and how do we start making people aware of that? Indeed education, the schools that we used so many years for indoctrination can be used to create critical thinkers who are able to live freedom instead of bending freedom into our own or simply dream about true freedom that will never come.

Liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society, which would be meaningful to teach our children. Looking at our educational system right now we see that the foundations are still from centuries ago. We are still training kids to be obedient and do tasks in certain timeframes regardless of the learning pace of the child. We are still moulded into factory workers or office clerks, nothing changed there. How many times did we see the teacher bending natural expressions of kids into obedience and only being able to express oneself when asked? How many times did we see an entire class walk in couples in a row not being able to speak? Does that contribute to learning to cooperate and communicate in a civil way? Does that teach our kids how to practically live life?

There are already schools worldwide that do understand what kids need in the 21th century, but it’s only a few and not enough to give all children the chance to truly learn. Schools that value evidence based learning and teachers that are capable of trusting the students because they trust themselves with the task as coach for these students. Plain language and math needs to be learned and tested in a natural way and once the student is equipped with free accessible information he can start learning in a practical way and direction that is fit for him and his skills and or talents. When we look at Liberal Education for College students we can see that it is a form of learning that does come close to the previous description. It’s an approach that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest.

So the pillars of Liberalism can only work when we have our definitions of all types of freedom aligned. In the end it is all about words and releasing our words of any emotional charges. When our freedom has greed as connotation we will never reach what is best for all. When freedom is simply the right to live equally, where we can express our true selves and communicate in equality, then freedom can work. The only but is, whenever our vocabulary is as limited as it generally is we are not able to communicate in an effective way and inequality would meet up with us soon. So here again our basic education needs to be in place and automated so that we are able to function optimal and thus support and assist others and ourselves. Liberal is me, and I can only be liberal when I am able to understand others without the noise of ignorance and lack of proper education.

The Living Income Guaranteed is a valid replacement of Liberalism or better Social Liberalism. It deals more with the outflows of all that needs to be implemented in society in order to maintain freedom and equality. What do certain goals implicate in certain situations? How can we best make a transfer from the old to the new? And never let words and terms be open to fantasy or abuse, be clear and directive in tomorrows world where we can all have a place that gives value to our surrounding and which values ourselves through who we are. We’re able to liberate ourselves from old systems as long as our mind set is what’s best for all we’ll find our way to freedom.

Socialism as an economic system and a political movement, to introduce Socialism within society, has one big problem; it never has been practiced in its true form as one system that runs society. There have been several countries throughout time and there are still several countries that call themselves socialist countries, while in fact they’ve created a cocktail of which Socialism is one of the ingredients. Some countries used Socialism as a first stage to enter Communism and others gave in to Capitalism and made their own Molotov cocktail.

Having a social security system or social safety net as a country, doesn’t make it an absolute socialist country. We can neither speak of absolute Socialism when a country has a totalitarian regime that organizes the major industries in that country. Although the word Socialism carries the following words: social is me, it depends on the countries actions whether at the end of the day it was indeed social in any way possible as Socialism dictates. So lets have a look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of Socialism:

A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Socialism as an economic and political theory was created from a starting point of making an utopian society. Opposite to most other systems, Socialism had no consensus on how the ideal socialist society would function. There are in fact many forms of Socialism created that all differ from economic planning to community size. The most common are Guild Socialism, Utopian Socialism that also includes communal societies, Christian Socialism, Market Socialism and Agrarianism. The common denominator in all of these variations is stressing the importance of cooperation among the people and keeping away from (capitalistic) competition.

True socialists want to create an entire classless society where the major industries are controlled by the government. Socialists see this control as only way to get rid of competition among the people and to create equality. In a socialist society there is no such thing as private property, since working results in equal wages and equal basic necessities, it provides all with equal benefits and opportunities. Among true socialists the idea exists that Capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Due to the competitive nature of Capitalism, it is possible for the wealthy minority to keep in control over the industry, which eventually lessens the opportunities and wages of the working class. Within Democratic Socialism we see in countries such as Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain that Capitalism is part of the socialist foundation.

Opponents of Socialism say that the problem of this economic system is the equal wages and therefore no incentive to get up in the morning and to do our paid work with an equal amount of pleasure as when we get paid more than people who studied less or have less effective connections in life. Furthermore they say that human beings are selfish and self-centred power seeking beings that when given power they will abuse that power. They point out that our tumultuous past and history books show us what human nature has brought us thus far. Governments may not become the collective alter ego that is driven and energized by power and no longer serving the people and the greater good, according to the opponents.

The question is whether the true socialist and the opponents of Socialism are really depicting reality or are they making a caricature out off reality? Things don’t always have to be black or white, when we speak about utopia most people can’t grasp the fact that this world could be or become an utopia, it’s simply denial. When we speak about totalitarian regimes, a lot of people can’t either relate to that as a daily reality. So as much as Socialism, as many other economic theoretical systems, has never been reality in its purest form nor has utopia or an utter totalitarian hell on earth been for us all. That means that we’re merely talking about things from a mind perspective and trying to gather examples from real life that are not always correct examples and do not always take all dimensions in consideration.

What if we, in an attempt to better our world systems, take what seems valid from Socialism and Capitalism and recreate it into ‘Distributive Capitalism’ and place the central power with the people and the government. That way we could make the government more into a logistic department that is at the service of the people. We’d take from Capitalism the creative entrepreneur and from Socialism solidarity. In one strike we would eliminate ‘the winner takes it all’ principle and the all-controlling government. As Jeremy Rifkin, an American economic (1945), says: “Being social and entrepreneurial go well together now a days. It changes the way of thinking. This would really mean ‘power to the people’. It means democratization of energy and information and even the economy. It is flattening down Capitalism and what arises one could call ‘Distributive Capitalism’. In a way Capitalism and Socialism do no longer exist, because ‘Distributive Capitalism’ takes the best of both systems. It combines risk taking, creativity and entrepreneurship.”

When we look at the statement of the opponents of Socialism who say that it will promote laziness and it devaluates self promotion, we can ask these same people if they would come out of bed every morning when they become entrepreneurs instead of the working slaves they’re right now. When in a system such as ‘Distributive Capitalism’ or in a Living Income Guaranteed, we are a part of the companies or have our own companies, that will surely be enough incentive to get out off bed. When you for real become a part of society and what you do matters and therefore you only want to do the things that matter, you feel validated by society and yourself. When you are entrepreneur and the business you’ve started had to be tested in real time and didn’t work out for the best of all, you can simply stop and have temporarily a living income. Now when our business is likely to fail we would push even though we damage others, we would push because of money issues. When money is no longer our main concern we can do the jobs we like, we can invent new jobs and let technology do the jobs technology does best. We never would feel threatened and fear for our living.

We could start seeing jobs in a whole other perspective and really practice solidarity. We no longer would have to focus on one of our talents and make a career out of it. We could pile up all our talents and we could have different jobs build upon the different talents. On Monday and Tuesday we work for a newspaper, Wednesdays we use for development and creativity in a brainstorm team with all kinds of different professions and on Thursday and Friday we teach children and adults. Wouldn’t that be great to be able to be creative, talented and reassured of income when our real time tested ideas do stand the test of time? There might be people in the beginning that simply do not know how to move themselves even in a society that is inviting them to do so, those people can live on a living income and slowly but surely discover what they want to do to contribute to society. In school we can start on an early age to teach children how to become an entrepreneur, since not all of us have that in us as a natural talent. Thus when there are no good or bad ideas in essence but only one criteria that applies namely: we will not abuse, we could gradually grow towards utopia whether we call it Socialism or simply living in the best interest of all.

The same goes for power, when we are already in ‘power’ over our own lives, do we still need to overrule other’s lives? Seeing what real power is and what sustainable power entails, no one ever would want to reach for totalitarian power. As soon as our inner strength is the force that direct us, and that will be reached when financial fears are no longer there, we simply become equals without even thinking about bossing another around that is equal to us. That way we would not let people in charge that are mentally instable, if that’s a polite term for dictators and sociopaths, they would get the opportunity to get to their inner strength with the support and assistance of society. Power and the need for power can look like a big thing to overcome in a transitional period where another economic system is introduced, whereas greed will be an even bigger thing for all of us to overcome. Where greediness for power is really indicating where it all stems from, the fear to not have enough, which will be eliminated with for instance LIG.

So Socialism as in ‘social is me’ or ‘I’m social’, has many valuable proposals in it that we can use to create a society through which we can enter the 21 century. We can ask ourselves if we want to hang on to all the ISMs that have been invented so far or are we willing to take what is effective and move on. We as a person know that it is of no use, when we continue living in our own past, the same goes for our society and us as a whole. Living in the past with ineffective pillars that arrange our society, we can call plain stupid. It’s time to move on and leave the ISMs behind us and for one time dare to think out of the box of our comfort zone. When we continue walking this known path, will there still be an old age pension for us, will there still be enough jobs, and will we be able to simply be happy and not fear tomorrow’s sorrows? When social is in you, then you’ve got the incentive to move and change and mould this society until it fits our 21 century needs, not greed, but plain and normal needs. Being social leads to feeding your needs who are most likely equal in essence to all the other people’s needs. We need you to need yourself and to investigate a Living Income Guaranteed.

Communism is a way to organize a society, as simple as that, though the word communism is colored by many different political movements and agendas. People who grew up with ‘The Cold War’ have reactions towards Communism and get goose bumps; at the same time we see that still in several countries around the world Communism is seen as a ‘Robin Hood’ for the working class. Its opponents call Communism in its purest form an utopia and Communism as in Stalinism was a cruel version of Communism where poverty ruled for the majority.

Zsuzsanna, who grew up in Hungary under liberal Communism, still feels nostalgic about that time. Her parents grew up under Stalinism and had a harsh childhood. Hungary was the most liberal country of Eastern Europe. The communists provided everyone with guaranteed employment, good education and free healthcare and violent crime was non-existent.

In the summer Zsuzsanna went to summer camp organized by the state. Her parents worked for a state factory that made records. On Monday there was no television and was meant to spent with your family. Zsuzsanna says that education and culture were greatly understood by the government and tickets for the opera or cinema were quite affordable. She went to the Pioneers after school where they were taught how to build friendships and the importance of community. According to Zsuzsanna communist Hungary was far from being hell on earth, no bread queues or nasty tales of secret police, it was in fact a fun place to be.

Carlo who grew up in Cuba, was able to flee to the USA where he married his current wife. Life under the dictatorship of Castro was though and no one would say anything nasty about Castro while still living in Cuba. When Carlo grew up food was each month given in rations. Back then when you wanted to buy things in a store you needed US dollars, which you could only gain by asking people outside the country to send it to you. The government would take 20 cent of every dollar.

When Carlo turned 12 they he was forced to go to boarding school and only saw his family every two weeks for two days. At school he studied 5 hours, had to work four ours a day and did three hours of homework. Education and healthcare were so called free from any charge, though the Cuban people had to pay fifty per cent income taxes to receive these services. In order to be admitted in hospital and receive a hospital bed a family member had to give a blood donation.

These two stories illustrate how different life under a communist regime can be. Basically it’s all about the people who lead a country that determine how humane a system is carried out. In order to not get carried away by all the various definitions of Communism and all the various embodiments it has, we’ll stick to two of the Merriam-Webster definitions of Communism within the context of this blog post.

A way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that is used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.

A final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.

James Arlandson (PhD) who teaches world religions and introductory philosophy at a college in southern California says: “Capitalism is founded on freedom, with the brakes applied to it only a little, so that it does not run out of control downhill. On the other hand, communism-turned-socialism in the US which is founded on control and restriction, with a little of the brakes released, so that it does not do more than crawl downhill.”

As Arlandson says, Communism is founded on control and restriction and has turned into for instance Socialism or even Capitalism. Today we have only five countries left in the world that are communist countries, China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. There are also movements that claim that Communism has never been practiced in its purest form the way Marx had planned it. Here we speak of Marxism/Leninism, where Communism is the transitional stage in which we have social ownership of the means of production to come to a fundamental change in the economic system and society according to Marxism. The way Marx interpreted Communism is now a day referred to as Early Communism. In Ancient Greece Plato wrote in his book ‘The Republic’: “The private and individual is altogether banished from life and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasions”(Wikipedia), where the ideas of Early Communism were already formulated in a prudent and practical manner. In other words, people have always been looking for systems that would provide equality and brotherhood. It’s the practical application of such systems in day to day living that have shown us that equality in all ways has never been reached.

The question we could ask ourselves is: what have been the greatest problems for Communism to survive and become an economic and political system that would be widely welcomed and implemented?

First of all Communism has never been a free choice of the people of a country, it is forced upon them and therefore it results in many cases into dictatorship. This means that there is a repressive environment where people have not the freedom to express themselves, a large military expenditure to control the masses, misallocation of resources by restricting or denying certain foods, a heavy burden of a totalitarian regime and the absence to remove incompetent decision makers within Communism.

Due to the totalitarian superstructure of Communism the secret police becomes a resource-sucking structure that has, if we look at some of the former East European countries, half of the population as spies/informants for the secret services. People were not able to trust each other or their own government, which makes it difficult to be or become a patriot. Even concentration camps were used to repress the people in communist countries. When people are not loyal to the system they will somehow undermine that very system, such as black market activities and employee theft. People become dis-incentivised and demotivated and will not work for a regime that they spite. With no trust and fear of the dictator, Communism is like hell on earth, while it can be applied to support its people.

Dictatorship is an expensive way to lead a country, where only a few live the good life and information is restricted. Communism under a dictatorship makes it hard for regimes to discover and correct their mistakes; therefore most often incompetence goes unpunished. Improvement is almost impossible when constructive criticism isn’t possible while communist countries were to a large extend dealing with corruption and lack of transparency. Dictators do not encourage thinking outside the box and thus questioning the system equals putting your own life at risk.

Communism is wastefully using its recourses and is also known for its mismanagement. In communist countries there is no such thing as the market signaling that certain products are not in demand. Furniture for instance is made and even though the majority dislikes them and find them unpractical there is no choice since the state dictates them and determines the price. That way there is no evidence or any feedback for factories to know whether to invest in more of this furniture or make something totally different.

People applying for a job are not chosen due to their abilities; instead their political loyalty to the system is getting them into certain places on the working floor. That means that personal success is depending on political reasons and the amount of idolizing the leader, getting a job has absolutely nothing to do with being economically efficient.

The communists try to protect their economy from boom and bust cycles, though the opposite occurs and they stagnate their own economy by abolishing the market forces. They see the market in a way as evil and not as a tool to keep in touch with the outflows of an economic implemented system. When the market does not produce any incentives to innovate, the lack or inability to innovate at a large scale will eventually be the deathblow of Communism inside a country. Communism can be seen as rigid and slow to adopt to change, creativity is mostly discouraged and new ideas have to be in line with the party.

When we look at Marx’s ten measures of Communism we can see the attempt on paper to bring equality, end poverty and educate its people. In reality this has not happened in many cases, because of Communism transforming into Totalitarianism or Socialism. Looking at these ten measurements economist say that the USA today fits neatly into these measurements as well. The USA isn’t a communist state, but is getting close to resemble that which they’ve fought with their Cold War. Don’t they say, what you resist persist?

It’s time to look into solutions from a starting point of using what’s already here, we’re going to have a look at Marx’s ten measures of Communism and then see how these principles can work for us. Which doesn’t mean that we have to reinvent Communism, its more looking at a system such as the Living Income Guaranteed, and see what we’re able to use and keep that which has proven itself as effective.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

When people own their own land or property they will most likely cherish it. If the state owns all and the people feel limited by the state, they will not take care of the land and property, they will rebel and spite the state. So owning a house and some land can turn out to create more responsibility. Having too much property then necessary is asking for regulation of the hoarding of property and land, this can be done in a society where all that have not enough financial means yet may apply for a living income. So when someone has for instance tree houses and quite some land, they will not qualify for a living income and have to sustain themselves. They can sell their properties first and when they are unemployed they can qualify for a living income.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

When we no longer see our income as a way to become wealthy, things immediately change. Which means that when our income is no longer something that can be used as a cash cow for taxes, but simply sustains your basic needs. Then where do we get the money from and thus what money do we use instead of tax money? When we no longer use taxes as redistribution and simply set a price for the use of for instance infrastructure and make it into a contribution system, then tax is no longer a personal attack but simply paid whenever and how much you use it. In other words if you make use of the economic system, you’ll proportionally contribute more to sustain it, from a starting point of having your financially basics needs met.

Maite Zamora Moreno: “If a basic income or living income is provided through non-tax funding – then the ‘pay as you go’ tax or ‘TEAL’ should be sufficient to mobilize the funds needed for other government expenditures, which we suggest would be quite limited if the economy in itself is largely corrected and empowered through the integration of the Living Income or Basic Income – then other taxes can indeed be abolished.”

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Inheritance within a society where our basic needs are met is of no need if we look at the purpose of an inheritance. It’s meant to pass on wealth within a particular family. With this wealth comes power as well and within a more humane system there is no way to control people with money when all people’s basic financial needs are met. So abolition is not necessary since inheritance will become obsolete in the end. It will be a natural process and thus no need to act as a powerful government/state that dictates people to get rid of their self-styled rights. People in general do not like change and especially change where they think they may lose things instead of gaining them.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

When every country has its own people basic needs met, due to a new economic system such as LIG, there will not be as much movement around the globe as we see now a day. Most emigrants are economic emigrants and if they would have a decent life in the country they grew up, they most likely prefer to stay in their own country. Emigrants that like the adventure of living somewhere else and really contributing to another society are not seen as a threat but as an asset when money and jobs are no longer something to fight over.

5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The nationalization of banks and digitalizing money will make banking into a management of funds. With a living income personal debt will no longer accumulate. With LIG all debt will be forgiven, banks will facilitate the building of houses and will facilitate the placement of motorcars, which are debt based on capital investments and good for economic growth. Profits will be there from a minimal interest rate and can be used to facilitate a Living Income Guaranteed. Taxes will be collected by the nationalized banking system, sales tax and value added taxes. Also here we use the principle of paying on how much one uses.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Media should be in the hands of the people, owned by the people. We should be able to develop critical thinking, investigate certain topics and share this through media. That way we will have media that is of the people and for the people.

Transportation can be nationalized since this is a basic need for people and should not be in the hands of individuals trying to make a profit out of it. We must be able to travel from a to b and simply pay for the service, so that everyone is able to pay for these services.

7. Extension of factories and instrument of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste land, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

There is no need to make factories/companies owned by the state. When now people have a living income and before they were not really part of the economic system, as in customers, now the amount of customers will increase and companies can make more profit. This profit can be used to better the working conditions in the factories/companies and they do not have to compulsively increasing the production. That way prices can become affordable and quality can increase. The factory/company no longer has to be a profit-making machine and employees will be happy and feel valued. Employees can even be the shareholders of that company, have a saying in the future of the company and feel more committed to the job as when they are exploited by their boss.

Using the soil for agriculture and not abusing the soil is a principle that we need to respect as long as we will be able to eat from what Mother Nature is able to give us. Respect for all our human fellows is a great start, though respect for all life should be in place if we do not want to end up as abusers.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

When all people need a job we certainly have to create more jobs. The question is: are there enough reasonable and useful jobs to get an entire planet working? A lot of the current jobs will be automated within the next decade. There are currently jobs that shouldn’t be here if we all took our responsibility. And there are jobs that are not yet invented, many environmental problems need to be solved and thus need new approaches. Why should we all be working when someone if fine with earning a living income and be a responsible citizen who participates within society? Let people do the things they’re good at, create happy people.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

There will be more people living in the countryside when they have a living income and do not depend on jobs in the city or they work from home. This will be a natural process where people who like the countryside go and live there for agricultural reasons or simply to live more with nature.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Free education is a beautiful goal and should already start with the parents before they even have their children. Knowing who you are will make it easier to guide your child through life without transferring your unprocessed issues to your child. Knowing what a child goes through and knowing that your child will always be a mirror for yourself, makes you aware of your attitude towards and around your children and children in general.

Home-schooling your children the first seven years of their lives gives you the opportunity to bond with your child and teach them their basics in a one on one setting. School after seven years of home-schooling will be an addition and a gathering of students to discover those things they would like to learn with other students of different ages. Teachers will be coaches that guide the students in their quest of finding the right knowledge and information and incorporate it in such a way that they can work with it and complete their intended purpose or project.

School should be a place that creates critical thinkers that are ready for the era they live in and not a hatchery for children that will become factory or office employees easy to manage by their bosses.

Today Communism in its purest form is hardly to be found anywhere and it is likely that it will not survive the test of time. When we look again at the word Communism, we can see that we can split it up into: come u is me. That would be a wonderful start for any new system that we can bring into life. Come and join, because you are equal to me and I am equal to you, we will care for each other and not settle for less.

Communism had its chances, its time to bring in something new, built upon the experiences and various dimensions of the old. Join us in exploring the best solutions for the best society where all of us can live our utmost potential. Investigate a Living Income Guaranteed.

The term Democracy was first used in ancient Greek politics in Athens, during classical antiquity. Democracy as we know it today was established in 508-507 BC and had all the characteristics of what we now call: Direct Democracy. Democracy that we mostly see in first world countries is tied in with Capitalism like a Siamese twin, where Democracy is the political system and Capitalism the economic system. Most of these first world countries have a Representative Democracy, instead of the original Direct Democracy, where power is indirectly exercised through elected representatives.

Roger Vernon Scruton, an English philosopher, argues that Democracy alone isn’t going to bring personal and political freedom as long as civil society isn’t included. Where civil society is families and private spheres that are partly the building blocks of our society. So according to Roger his argumentation, we can see that the word Democracy has a specific connotation, namely freedom. As long as our countries have a system of Democracy, there is according to the majority, as well freedom. Freedom we all know as a powerful word that can and will make us move and direct ourselves to gain it. When countries are on a military mission they say: we’ll bring Democracy and freedom to these countries, and that should justify, what in essence could be called robbing countries. When we bring Democracy, which in daily life that means that we’re robbing these countries from their natural resources, and we put different political figures in place that do agree with us, we’re simply bringing dictatorship. Thus the connotation freedom to the word Democracy isn’t making the average man think about the true intensions of forcing a political system onto another country to enrich us.

When we simply look at the word Democracy we can see that it is made up from the words ‘demos’ and ‘kratia’, where ‘demos’ means ‘people’ and ‘kratia’ means power or govern. Which we can translate back to: power to the people. When we look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, it says: 1a. Government by the people, especially: rule of the majority and 1b. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

It is not really surprisingly that Democracy has this freedom connotation to it, when we speak of: power to the people, government by the people, majority rule and free elections. This is giving us the impression that we have the power on our side and that we live in freedom and we can gain even more liberties. The question is: is that our day-to-day reality? Why did we have the Occupy movements throughout the Capitalistic Democratic countries? Why do free elections always have the outcome that doesn’t serve the majority? Where did things go wrong when we had our Representative or Direct Democracy plotted out on paper, where it looked like the best solution on earth?

Democracy is a highly fragile system and isn’t a system that spontaneously comes into existence and steadily keeps existing. We simply have to work for it and see the value of being at the same page with each other, when we long for a perfect Democracy.

Where we already spoke about the Siamese twin, Capitalism and Democracy, we can also add Globalization to the cocktail. This Trinity allows us to make freely more money at the expense of another, and that’s where we see this polarized division come into play, that enables society to be divided into rich and poor. At times there is a middle class that will be swiped out by crisis where we end up with the haves and not haves and the 99% and 1%. The Occupy movements did put the finger on the sore spot and at the same time it was laughing in our face and showing us how we’ve allowed our society to become a Democracy, where freedom consist of freely grabbing when the power is on your side.

Due to the fact that our democratic system is fragile, we fall prey to democratic elements that can be in favor of us the people or it can act totally against the whole or majority.

When we look at our right to vote, either in elections or referendums, its clear that we can exercise our right to correct the elected representatives when making big decisions. At the same time it can become a point where the majority isn’t informed enough to see how painful decisions right now will become steady and best for all outcomes on the long term. When the majority votes in ignorance against a certain decision/path of the government/parliament, they might not see the long-term goals and bring more harm with their right to vote. At the same time we can see that mainstream media can influence the majority as well when it comes to voting and due to our Trinity we can never say for sure who paid who to get certain information out there. In other words you might have the right to vote and have a voice, but whose voice is it?

Where politicians should go for the long-term decisions making, we see that our democratic system is producing politicians that work within their 4-5 years of being in power as guidance for their decisions who then become short-term decisions. Where wealthy people or organizations, that do determine the course that is set out, fund parties; we can no longer speak about freedom and Democracy in a system full of bias.

Within our current Democracy money is no longer a common good and is used as a powerful weapon by those who have money and buy governments. Politicians end up in corporations and banks, where the initial idea of Democracy was to elect people give them a chance to act in the best interest of the whole and then get reelected or simply become part of the people again when it didn’t work out. It’s the money trail that shows us who our true leaders are and not the empty promises of political Muppets.

Then our fourth power, the authorities, which are almost acting on their own like a well-oiled machine that instructs the politicians and not the other way around. The more power there is within this fourth power the bigger the gap becomes between the people and the authorities. In a way both groups get disconnected, where the authorities can no longer step into the shoes of the people as an organ(ization). This position of the fourth power within Democracy makes it easy for them to become manipulated by those who own the power as money. In these instances the private interest will out rule the interest of the majority.

Our democracy did cause more openness and at the same time this didn’t bring forth better governments or better politics. The openness brought us the Internet where people could have a voice. Governments saw this as a threat and invented a countermovement where disinformation was spread throughout the Internet. NGO’s came into life and here as well governments had the feeling they had to protect their own interests and thus invented GONGO’s as a countermovement. GONGO’s take a lot of the subsidies and do not leave much room for the NGO’s. Thus the openness our Democracy brought us is now creating chaos and in the end apathy when people do not know what to believe anymore within this world of too much information.

Democracy has brought us polarity where as long as we do not educate ourselves with correct information it’s simply an utopia to come to a situation where we are able to determine what is best for all. At the moment Democracy is the struggle of power and not the humbleness it could be.

Demon-crazy or Crazy Demon is what Democracy has become within the Trinity of Capitalism and Globalization. Democracy is like a bandage in an ocean full of blood. Democracy and preferable Direct Democracy is not going to happen within an economic system that will not support true Democracy. We can patch up our election system, we can educate the masses and thus give back the power to the people, as well as cutting out a government that is the powerful decision making body within society. The thing is, as long as we use money as bribery means and do not bring back solidarity and local connectedness, Democracy is like a raft floating around. Where power to the people ends up in division and not solidarity.

In order to give Democracy a second chance we have to work towards another economic system that does support true Direct Democracy. A Living Income Guaranteed can provide Democracy a stable platform and is able to see its fragility while not abusing its fragility. When our basic financial needs are met and there is no reason anymore for making money at the expense of another and where ‘have not’ becomes a historical term, we can thrive as beings and truly see what is important in life.

For us to arrive at a LIG system we need to keep faith in life and ourselves as life, be willing to educate ourselves and our future generations and not fear real change. As much as we think we have already our desires met, we can only dream about how life would be when we do elect a person for whom he/she is, within our community or country, and see what it means when this person acts in the best interest of the whole. When we can really manifest companies and organizations that are in favour of its people that work with the people and not against them. Where money is a way to exchange goods and services without having orgasmic ideas about profit.

That’s why it is time to educate us, get the crazy demon out of us and follow the trail of brotherly love as our best solution.